Study finds new Army vehicle too vulnerable.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 26Aug03 | By Rowan Scarborough

[.cnI redruM]

I liked M113's. We should use them instead of a Stryker. They actually seem to have a lower profile and are harder to spot. That's one defence against an RPG.

[SJSAMPLE]

They let air out of the tires, stripped the outside, took off the extra armor, gas and ammo, and left the crew behind.

That's all.

[xm177e2]

"For the past three weeks, in California's barren Mojave Desert, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team proved its speed, versatility and lethality against a world-class opposing force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin," an Army press release said earlier this month.

The military doesn't even try to hide the fact that it rigs these "exercises" so it will come off looking good. Just ask General Paul Van Riper.

[.cnI redruM]

Rediculous. I remember The Gen. Van Riper flack.
I've seen hamstrung OPFORs before. It's a cheap way to do business.

[Darksheare]

Someone once told me the M113's were retired because of the cost to update the electrics and the drive, as well as the armor being light.
I'm not 100% positive about all the details on that one, there are those who are more in the know on that detail, but the M113 had better armor without the trouble of tires!

[Darksheare]

Ah yes, the "refloating the fleet" deal.
Reminds me of unceremoniously being declared 'dead' at Fort Drum because I saw the OpFor long before anyone else did and warned my unit.
After that, I was told that I didn't 'see' 8 guys 30 meters in front of me.

Wonderful folks, the OC's!
(They're really Advanced Party for whichever side they feel partial to. At Drum, it's the OpFor..)

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks for your comment.

>>Nope. No way. C-5s and C-17s are considered strategic assets.<<

Actually, no.

C-17 is TAC and STRAT asset. Planned that way and used that way.

No question, C-130's are great, small, versatile, can take a beating.

C-17's designed to serve in both strat airlift and tac airlift.

Direct delivery is the term used.

"The C-17 is capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. The aircraft is also capable of performing tactical airlift and airdrop missions when required. The inherent flexibility and performance of the C-17 force improve the ability of the total airlift system to fulfill the worldwide air mobility requirements of the United States."

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/C_17_Globemaster_III.html

>>That is exactly the reason for the C-130 spec in the first place. <<

C-130's came before C-17. C-17 is planned to eventually replace/augment C-130s in the tac role.

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks. . .as a former A-10 guy, and firing the 30mm, I really didn't care about reactive armor much as the 30mm roundS hitting the target would take care of reactive armor (and could punch through unprotected armor too). Besides, the Maverick missile didn't care about reactive armor much either.
;-)

Just didn't know about RPG's and such.

Thanks again.

[Gunrunner2]

Good points. Which brings up a question: if even heavy tanks can be disabled by RPG's, you think any armored personnel carrier can make the grade when it comes to taking hits? High bar, as I see it.

[LTCJ]

I realize C-17 were designed as tactical airlifters. I spent a decade in the tactical airlift industry and my current units' mission directly supports a C-130 wing.

My point still stands, however. Any flag officer that would order a C-17 anywhere near a FEBA would find himself picking his stars out of a trashcan. The C17 has the capability - it definitely does not have the mission. Too few and too costly.

The Army recognized this in specifying the C-130 requirement for the Stryker. To borrow from the title of this thread - Army finds C-17 Too Vulnerable. They knew 17s would never be tasked for this job.

[snippy_about_it]

Unfortunately, some lower ranking soldier will and up being the sacrificial goat in his place.

I fear you are right Darksheare. Sad.

[Darksheare]

I fear that I am right as well.
I loved being in uniform, and it hurts to see idiotic ideas like the Stryker happen.

[colorado tanker]

I agree the Shineski era was a disaster. But I'm even more afraid of what Rummy's restructuring surgeons have in mind for the Army.

[colorado tanker]

So, do you have any inside scoop on whether Stryker is really C-130 deployable? The rumor I heard is that to get one on a C-130 they had to strip it and that the RPG armor makes it too heavy to fly.

[Darksheare]

Wouldn't happen at all if Shinseki and his kind hadn't opened the door first.
But, it was, and it's happening.
It's unfortunately, it's like it's 'in fashion' to gut the military.

[colorado tanker]

The military is streched so thin right now that I'm hoping they won't be able to cut more, as a practical matter.

[snippy_about_it]

I loved being in uniform...

And we're glad you were in uniform.

Thanks for the ping to this thread today and your insight. We love the fact that you are part of the Foxhole "family", and I just want to say again, Thank you for your service Darksheare.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

At $12 to $15 billion for 2100 units this sounds a little on the high side. How can they cost between $5714285 and $7142857 ?

[Nebr FAL owner]

M-1A's were hit in Iraq with RPG's & kept right on going . I have read were the British are working on a anti RPG armor that is ELECTRIC, it works on the notion that the copper cone in a RPG round that forms a self forging penatrating fragment conducts electricity & it will be like trying to wire the starter motor to a semi truck to the battery with single strands of speaker wire. The Brits have conducted some preliminary tests that were successful.